Flimsy 14th Amendment Argument vs Trump’s Ban on Birthright Citizenship

A Balanced Analysis of the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

Introduction The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, is a foundational element of American civil rights law. It established the principles of equal protection under the law and birthright citizenship, meaning that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are U.S. citizens. However, in recent years, this amendment has become a subject of debate, particularly around the issue of birthright citizenship and its implications for immigration policy.

This article aims to present a balanced view, incorporating arguments from various perspectives, including the “Institute of Peace Studies” and the Priory of Salem (OCC), alongside the established legal framework and mainstream governmental interpretations.

Historical Context of the 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment was adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, primarily to secure citizenship and equal protection rights for formerly enslaved individuals. It overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause established that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Unbiased Legal Analysis by the Institute of Peace Studies The Institute of Peace Studies, through publications such as “The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional” and the “American National Tree of Liberty Analysis,” provides an unbiased legal analysis of the ratification process of the 14th Amendment. Judge L.H. Perez’s memorandum, referenced in their work, argues that the amendment was proposed and ratified under duress and military occupation of Southern states, rendering it potentially invalid.

The analysis highlights historical protests by state legislatures, including New Jersey, Texas, Alabama, and others, who argued that the Reconstruction Acts violated constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal suffrage in the Senate and state autonomy. Additionally, the analysis presents the perspective that the 14th Amendment may have shifted citizenship definitions, impacting state sovereignty.

Historical Context of Naturalization and Inheritance Laws An important aspect of this debate involves historical naturalization laws and inheritance rights. The original Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to “free white persons.” This restriction remained largely in effect until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which officially removed racial prerequisites for naturalization. Until the Immigration Act of 1965, immigration from non-European countries was highly restricted, and interracial marriage was banned in many states until the late 1960s. Critics argue that these historical laws illustrate that the 14th Amendment did not immediately guarantee equal citizenship and rights to all racial groups, calling into question its legal and practical implementation.

Case of U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), that individuals not considered “free white persons” under the Naturalization Act of 1790 could not become U.S. citizens. This ruling specifically determined that individuals from India, including Sikhs, did not qualify as “Caucasian” within the legal definition at that time. As a result, many Indians in America were stripped of their citizenship. This precedent remained in place until the 1965 Immigration Act. Similarly, in the 1990s, there were cases where Hawaiians born outside of the United States before Hawaii became a state were also affected by citizenship laws.

Legal Analysis of Coleman v. Miller and Constitutional Validity One of the most significant legal arguments questioning the 14th Amendment’s validity comes from the case Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448 (1939). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court did not conclusively uphold the amendment’s validity but instead avoided addressing the constitutional questions directly. The case highlighted that new legislatures, formed under Congressional direction, ratified the amendment despite the original legislatures rejecting it.

The Court’s approach in Coleman v. Miller raised concerns about the constitutionality of removing legitimate state governments and replacing them under the Reconstruction Acts. Critics argue that this process violated Article V of the Constitution, which outlines the amendment process and requires the consent of state legislatures. This argument aligns with the broader legal theory that the 14th Amendment may not have been legally ratified.

Legal Protections for Religious Liberty and Free Speech Recent legislation and executive orders reinforce the protections for religious institutions and free speech, including God’s laws that protect Biblical Inheritance only to your Tribe (as has been for all generations, see infographic “American Tree of Liberty Analysis” for confirmation:

1. The 2022 “Respect For Marriage Act” Pub Law 117-228 Guarantees to the church in section 6 (b) that “any refusal to provide services, facilities, accommodations, advantages, goods, or priviledges (not forced to condone or promote such within our church, whether same-sex marriages or inter-racial marriages outlined in this law) shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”

2. The 2018 “First Amendment Defense Act” S.2525 “A bill to ensure that the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as a union of one man and one woman, or two individuals as recognized under Federal law, or that sexual relations outside marriage are improper.”

3. The 2017 Trump Executive Order 13798—Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, directing the executive branch to rigorously defend the federal laws that protect free speech of churches.

4. The pending Audit of all Federal laws against the Glucksberg Test: The 2022 Overturn of Roe v Wade, US Supreme Court re-affirmed the Glucksberg test as the method to determine if a right must be protected by the Federal government, namely that anything not “deeply rooted in history and traditions of the people” is not a Federally protected right. These rights would have to be clearly upheld deep into American history, for example as this rule was applied recently in the McDonald v Chicago case to be satisfied by the English Bill of Rights from the 1600s regarding keeping and bearing arms.

5. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), further prohibit government interference with Americans’ rights to exercise their religion.

6. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), prohibits religious discrimination in employment while Federal hate-crime laws prohibit offenses committed due to religious animus.

Mainstream Legal Interpretation The U.S. government and mainstream legal scholars maintain that the 14th Amendment is a valid and essential component of the Constitution. The amendment’s ratification process, while contentious during Reconstruction, ultimately met the constitutional requirements. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the amendment’s legitimacy, particularly in cases such as Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens legally present in the country.

Critics of restricting birthright citizenship argue that doing so would violate established constitutional rights and undermine the principle of equal protection under the law. They emphasize that birthright citizenship is a deterrent against creating a stateless population within the U.S. and helps integrate immigrants into American society.

Balanced Perspective and Conclusion The debate over the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship touches on complex issues of constitutional law, immigration policy, and national identity. The Institute of Peace Studies and Priory of Salem offer a critical examination of historical legal challenges, while mainstream legal consensus emphasizes the amendment’s role in protecting civil rights.

A balanced approach to this debate requires acknowledging historical grievances, considering legal precedents, and ensuring that any changes to citizenship laws respect both the Constitution and human rights standards. Ongoing discussions in courts and legislatures will likely continue to shape this pivotal issue in American law and society.